G�tz Waschk wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 17. Juli 2003, 08:05:26 Uhr MET, schrieb David Walser: >> Actually, userdrake should just drop the explicit >> requires because RPM will figure it out. It kinda >> makes sense for libuser1 to provide libuser, and the >> package currently called libuser (accounting for the >> confusion) should be renamed to something more >> descriptive of what it actually contains. Maybe >> libuser-tools is more appropriate or something. It's >> the one that really shouldn't provide libuser. > > Hi, > > I think the only bug is that libuser1 provides libuser. There are > other libraries that have additional data and config files in a > package named like the library, e.g. libgnome2. This hasn't been a > problem yet.
In that case it's also most likely a bug that userdrake depends on "libuser"
